If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   North Korea threatens Australia   (smh.com.au) divider line 226
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

23796 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2003 at 5:04 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



226 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-07-15 02:29:04 AM
Sheesh. N. Korea needs a spanking. It's 2003, not 1953. This penis waving by Kim Jong Il and his pals makes W.'s cowboy jingoism seem almost mature. Almost.

It seems both horrific and tacky to engage in this kind of sabre rattling in this day and age.
 
2003-07-15 03:28:09 AM
-agreed.

now is not the day or age to blurt out shiat like "bring it on".

bush is a pompass fool.
 
2003-07-15 03:37:46 AM
It looks here like the Pentagon are looking for ways to push N.K. into attacking so they have an excuse to go to war with them.

Oh, and no need to panic. The first line "Australian could face a nuclear attack from North Korea" makes it sound like they're only going to nuke one Australian. That wouldn't be so bad.
 
wee [TotalFark]
2003-07-15 04:29:01 AM
Like N. Korea can't get respect the normal way (by being a human), so they have to do it the bully's way. "Be nice or else" is just a complete crock, and they aren't in any way deserving of any respect whatsoever. That asshole sounds like he actually *wants* to use a nuke. How anyone in their right mind could want to use a nuclear weapon is beyond me. If I were Autralia, I'd be sorely tempted to tell them to go fark themselves.
 
2003-07-15 05:16:32 AM
"Mr Myong-Chol said North Korea had reprocessed 8000 nuclear fuel rods at the Yongbyon nuclear facility, and had nuclear missiles pointed at the United States."

I have a bottlerocket pointed at DC. doesn't mean it'll actualy go that far.


As far as threatening military action in the case of an embargo, I don't find that too terribly unreasonable. One hopes they try diplomcy first, but failing that any nation would attack to protect it's financial well-being.
 
2003-07-15 05:20:00 AM
Whats the point of attacking us aussies? We dont mean CRAP to tbe world!
 
2003-07-15 05:20:10 AM
Nuke Australia? And hit what, roos and desert? North Korea would be extremely lucky to even get ONE sheep station with the fallout.

Seriously, making threats like that is just stupid. Next thing you know, they'll threaten to nuke the moon.

They can't do that, right? RIGHT!?
 
2003-07-15 05:24:25 AM
jay_vee

What did Rush Limbaugh call them? US Snooze and World whatever? It was a funny name.

Anyway, it surprises me that what is in there is considered any sort of a scoop. That's just how international politics go...you try to force people to do something if they won't do it by negotation. You force them to. Heck, Japan is worried about what Korea would do...well, Japan is trying to hurt the import beef market by saying that Canada's beef is unsafe, when there's no evidence that it is.

Coercion. Everyone does it. It surprises me in the least that the US has plans like that. Heck, I figured there'd be more than 3!
 
2003-07-15 05:25:38 AM
Well they must not realise that Australia is still part of the United Kingdom. So saying they are going to nuke Australia is as stupid as sticking you hand in a basket that has a live cobra in it.
 
2003-07-15 05:26:17 AM
Finally, the looming threat of Australian agression will be eliminated by the brave North Koreans. May their dogs be fully cooked and their rolling blackouts kept short.

Perhaps Poland will be next.
 
2003-07-15 05:29:11 AM
North Korea can go suck my fat one.
 
2003-07-15 05:31:44 AM
Fine, implement trade embargoes etc., but all this provocation (if it's true - I have no idea if the US News is a reliable source) is just stirring up trouble. There's a difference between forcing people to comply with what you want, and trying to push them into a war.
 
2003-07-15 05:32:38 AM
i'm gonna invade nkorea soon if they dont shape up!
they better take this seriously, 'cos i'm one mean sumbiatch with a pellet gun.
 
2003-07-15 05:33:30 AM
Those North Koreans are agressive little buggers. Is it a height complex thing?
 
2003-07-15 05:33:50 AM
Call me a war monger, but i hope either way shiat gets blown up.
 
2003-07-15 05:34:30 AM
I blame John Howard... He wants to get Australia involved in george bushshiat so that he can looked like a big hero... but all hes done is become Bush's pet and put australia in the sights of hostile countrys and terriorists.. fark him

-Broman
 
2003-07-15 05:37:39 AM
"Well they must not realise that Australia is still part of the United Kingdom"

Unless I am very much mistaken it is not, it is however part of the commonwealth and has the Queen as its figurehead just as Canada does.
 
2003-07-15 05:41:00 AM
I agree with almost all comments above. My 2 bits here: this war will never happen because Russia and China will watch how the West handles this and when shizznit really looks like it will go down, they'll step in and quiet NK up. I'd bet North Korean currency on it.
 
2003-07-15 05:42:37 AM
jay_vee

(if it's true - I have no idea if the US News is a reliable source)

Eeh...it's up there with the Washington Post and Fox News and CNN, etc...

There's a difference between forcing people to comply with what you want, and trying to push them into a war.

There is? I'd love you to explain that to Kim Jong Il then, maybe he'd calm down.
 
2003-07-15 05:42:59 AM
Nothing to fear here people, move along. If that asshat Kim launched one, the response would have adverse effects on a nation called The People's Republic of China. Therefore, if he even has a serious thought about it, the PRC would invade and smack his ass down before he finished his morning shiate.
 
GCK
2003-07-15 05:43:15 AM
that would do north korea no good. we would flatten their whole country in a couple days, without nukes too.
 
2003-07-15 05:43:46 AM
Well they must not realise that Australia is still part of the United Kingdom. So saying they are going to nuke Australia is as stupid as sticking you hand in a basket that has a live cobra in it.

??????

When I was in Australia this year, John Howard was a very, very vociferous supporter of the US. Australia are their own country, and have their own foreign policy, and if that pisses people off it's nothing to do with the UK.
 
2003-07-15 05:44:47 AM
Peaceman Ya beat me to it. It's not good to piss off a billion and a half chinese
 
2003-07-15 05:45:35 AM
peter_hook:- If Kim pushes, we should flatten the farker. Loud sabre rattling is not the same as military action.
 
2003-07-15 05:46:13 AM
I think it's high time we went into North Korea and show 'em what Saddam's story didn't.
Farking Bastards.
 
2003-07-15 05:48:32 AM
wee

That asshole sounds like he actually *wants* to use a nuke. How anyone in their right mind could want to use a nuclear weapon is beyond me.

Wholehearted agreement here. Can't help remembering that something like 70%* of the US were in favour of nuking Afghanistan to get Osama, and nuking Iraq if chems came out of the woodwork during the invasion.

Lets not forget the people asking Congress for a new budget to develop smaller 'more usable' nukes and who seriously advocated first nuclear strike on the USSR (the US losses would be 'acceptable') - they are the same neo-cons that have made Bush administration US foreign policy for the last few years. They are FAR scarier with control of nukes than Kim the Crazy. They are also far more serious about using them.

They make me wish Australia had a few of our own and I HATE nukes.

* Statistic pulled out of arse so please don't request source.

/rant
 
2003-07-15 05:49:16 AM
cathalm

Unless I am very much mistaken it is not, it is however part of the commonwealth

The Commonwealth of...the United Kingdom?

and has the Queen as its figurehead just as Canada does.

All Commonwealth countries are the same, except those which left, ie Hong Kong and the USA. They have the Queen, she has her representation, which is the Governor-General, and the ability to make policy without asking the UK.

But they aren't independant. Australia narrowly voted not to abandon the Monarchy 2 years ago. Technically, they are just like Parliament in the UK...it exists because of the will of the Crown and can be dissolved at any time, but you'd have a revolution on your hands if the Crown tried to get into legislation again.

Someone in another thread the other day thought they knew what they were talking about, but didn't. All of the "technicalites" that make up the system of government are really quite nasty if push came to shove. It would be interesting to have the UN vote on who the land in Australia belonged to if there were a secession attempt against the will of the Crown. You'd have people being advocates for the aboriginal people, and you'd have other constitutional Monarchies supporting the Crown (lest they be next from a domino effect) and you'd have people like France and the US supporting self-governance.
 
2003-07-15 05:49:42 AM
This guy says not to worry.
 
rjp
2003-07-15 05:55:32 AM
they will never nuke aus.. if they do, they will have japan, china, south korea, US, UK and many other countries on their ass...



does ne1 remember a while ago they were saying they could reach america??..


sounds to me like a case of small dicks pretending to be big dicks....
 
2003-07-15 05:57:29 AM
jay_vee

When I was in Australia this year, John Howard was a very, very vociferous supporter of the US.

I have heard some interesting rumours about Oz. Don't quote me on these, they could all be BS. One is that the US doesn't spy on Australia, and the inverse is true. Further down that rumour, it's because we're both the bastard castoffs of the UK. Also, there's a huge piece of soverign US land in the middle of Australia, and I'm not talking like a consulate, it's a huge military base. Probably there's nukes there, but the rumour is that we own the land, it's actually USA territory...not leased from someone like Canada is from the natives thru a treaty. Real US property.

Wierd, eh?

If Kim pushes, we should flatten the farker. Loud sabre rattling is not the same as military action.

"Collateral damage" is such an ugly phrase, but even if x amount of people died in an attack on North Korea, weren't x amount of people going to die anyway? I could certainly see something along those lines being used to attack them.

I watched "Meet the DePressed" yesterday. Man that Rumsfeld can dance. It was awesome how Russert was trying to trick him into admitting Korea was a bigger threat than Iraq, so why not attack NK! Hahaha...he almost tripped Donny up. It was pretty good.

You're right, as well as a few other people here. Someone's gotta stop them. That's the sad thing about many people, they are too naive. You have to appreciate the horrors of war to know when it is or is not worth fighting for. They made a nice cartoon for Japanese kids about it called "Gundam Wing" that summed up the whole WWII and transformation from a feudal society into a modern one and the impact of WMD's vs. putting a face on your foe.

Interesting...but the nations that know conflict, the Chinas and Russias, they will create a manageable conflict to avoid letting NK dictate what kind of conflict it is. Tiny Japan pushed China around 50 years ago. China remembers.
 
2003-07-15 05:58:40 AM
NK knows (just like the rest of the world does) that the onle only way they can save their country from ruin is to pull $$$ from their outrageous military budget. But the only way he can do that without losing face (you know how important THAT is to Asian culture) is to force "the main enemy (the US)" to sign that pact. He could then go to his folks, hold that paper in the air and say "LOOK! We intimidated them and they caved in to NK's superior might! Now that we've defeated them, we can concentrate on our great economy"

Asian culture loves symbolism. All he wants is that stupid pact signed. In that case I say the US keeps doing what it's doing and tell him to fark himself. He's bluffing! and you know, if he's not, and he's stupid enough to launch a couple nukes, it won't be enough to cripple any country and it'll give our guys in the silos a perfect excuse to wipe them off the map...I suppose we could just give him what he wants (and no one gets hurt) but where's the fun in that? ;)
 
2003-07-15 06:02:28 AM
Aussies:

I'm in Malaysia right now. If I see anything fly, I'll let you know. Think of me as your own personal DEW line. :)
 
2003-07-15 06:03:50 AM
peter_hook

Australia narrowly voted not to abandon the Monarchy 2 years ago.

Only because the new constitutional model our asshat PM put forward was one in which the President (directly replacing the governer general as head of state) was appointed by parliament, not elected.

Since the President would be 100% ceremonial and have no influence on policy you wouldn't think that was a big deal, but if you have the only person authorised to dissolve the government also APPOINTED by the government, where the fark are your checks and balances? Non-existant, that's where.

We voted to stick with what we have now rather than cement a screwed model that would leave our government open to such ... misuse.

Howard was counting on it too (being a staunch monarchist), that's the only reason he allowed the referendum - he knew we wouldn't fall for it.

It would be interesting ... there were a secession attempt against the will of the Crown. You'd have ... other constitutional Monarchies supporting the Crown (lest they be next from a domino effect)

I don't believe so, no. None except for the Saudi Arabia types that is. The Queen governs by consent of the people, she knows that, and the rest of the western Monarchies know it too. It's the reason we can be comfortable with the arrangement - she has no powers. She doesn't want them.

To me that's better than the model the US has, where a single elected man (or pair of men) and a bunch of unelected ones making the real decisions can drive the country to ruin in the eyes of the world in under four years. No single person should have that power. It's stupid.

When we get a chance to vote for a model that has a popularly elected president with no powers besides those of the GG, we'll take it.
 
2003-07-15 06:03:55 AM
You are right it is apart of the commonwealth. Which is what I ment. Either way to attack it (even though I doubt they could) would cause for the full force of the Britsh Military as well as their close allies the USA. It seems to me that NK has hired Bagdad Bob as their press sec. As that threat sounds very much like "The Americans are not at the airport or within 100 miles of Bagdad." The person that said that NK would nuke Australia must have been living under a rock for the past few months. Does he not relise the US will invade and we have no problem with using force.
 
2003-07-15 06:04:44 AM
this is the strangest matchup since the russo-japanese war

what's next, finland and lesotho clash in a bloody outer-space nuclear robot battle?
 
2003-07-15 06:07:25 AM
Man that Rumsfeld can dance. It was awesome how Russert was trying to trick him into admitting Korea was a bigger threat than Iraq, so why not attack NK!

You really need some decent political interviewers over there. Our Jeremy Paxman would have got an answer.

As to the China/Japan thing, as has already been said by others I think China will have a big hand in whatever happens to NK. I've said this before, but I read one interesting opinion piece that suggested America might push to have Japan's post war arms restrictions removed if China doesn't handle it.
 
2003-07-15 06:09:44 AM
America will do everything in its power to avoid ever using ICBMs, or any other method of deploying nuclear weapons ever again.

If you have even one nuke, and threaten to use it, then you can be assured that you have Washington by the balls. The logic isn't, "If they nuke one American city, we will level their entire country" (and we will), but rather, "We can't risk losing one American city."

Same for cities in allied countries - because once the first nuke is launched, it is foreseeable that more will follow, from both sides. And although the slippery slope is often considered a logical fallacy, once must consider the possibility that we could end up on that slope, with everyone nuking someone, and a nuclear holocaust ensuing.

Armageddon is a really shiatty defense policy.
 
2003-07-15 06:13:26 AM
Apparently North Korea doesn't like Naked Opera either.

Can't someone take this guy out? At least we know where he is. We can send in a covert ops team to take him out...and then just say he tripped and hit his head after slipping on a bar of soap or something.

/or not
 
2003-07-15 06:14:13 AM
brianewart

America will do everything in its power to avoid ever using ICBMs, or any other method of deploying nuclear weapons ever again.

Wish you were right, evidence suggests you aren't :(

The logic isn't, "If they nuke one American city, we will level their entire country" (and we will), but rather, "We can't risk losing one American city."

Not for Perle. He was directly responsible for a president-appointed team that formulated a policy calling for first strike on Russia, and allowing a 30% loss rate for American cities as acceptable losses.

Seriously. This is the guy who talked you into Iraq. He is insane, and he was leader of the Defense Policy Board (doublespeak for the Attack Policy Board).
 
2003-07-15 06:16:56 AM
Tad3tte

That whole vote was screwed. I like how Canada did the Quebec question (even though they cheated to keep Quebec from seceeding, but that's another story) with a simple "Yes" or "No" referendum.

That whole thing was loaded from the start. The question should have been simple:

"Do you want to keep the Monarchy?" Yes or no. That's all it needed to be. Afterward, you could hold a referendum to decide how it should operate. Attaching too much information to a question like that makes it overcomplicated, much like a bill in the US, where people take a lock, like a bipartisan budget and put a rider on to outlaw abortion or whatever.

It's interesting you mention that the Queen doesn't want power. It alludes to what I said earlier: does she not want it because she's nice, or does she not want it because she likes having an option of control and living on welfare in a lifestyle no commoner could ever imagine (but could exalt their Monarch by loving)? See...it's the latter.

But as I said earlier, look at how these territories were established. Some were conquered, some were bought/bartered for, and some exist by treaty. Canada, for example, exists mostly by treaty. It's why the whole Quebec thing was funny/dangerous. It was funny because if they did secede, 90% of their land would be lost because it exists by a treaty with the Crown and the aboriginals (unlike Manifest Destiny, Canada played nice). So it's like, "fine Quebec, enjoy you 90% downsizing." The caveat is that legally, the existance of Canada itself could have to be renegotiated since it exists as a whole, Quebec included.

As a side note, I've been told that the US is still part of the Crown, but it's a corporation!

All of that said, the Crown really does legally own everything. Of course the Queen would give you Australia if you wanted it. But the whole system is...unstable? The office of PM doesn't even technically exist. That's a problem too.

Don't get the idea that I am inferring the US system is great. I'm not. I like Switzerland, Hong Kong, Japan. I'd love for the US to have national referendums. We simply vote on state propositions, nothing more. There is too much power in a representative government, we need a more direct government. First on the state level. I'd give up some say in national affairs if I could have a more proactive voice in state issues.
 
2003-07-15 06:18:46 AM
what's next, finland and lesotho clash in a bloody outer-space nuclear robot battle?

Don't be a moron. Lesotho is not near the threat that Andorra poses to Finnish sovereignty.

And space... well, it does have a terrible power.
 
2003-07-15 06:19:37 AM
All those tactical neutron bombs just collecting dust. I'm not for nuclear war, but I wouldn't mind watching a couple of those go off on CNN
 
2003-07-15 06:22:58 AM
peter_hook

I have heard some interesting rumours about Oz. One is that the US doesn't spy on Australia, and the inverse is true.

We spy FOR you :) We are the southern hemisphere/asian part of your defense network. A snippet from some website:

Pine Gap, near Alice Springs, employs nearly 1,000 people, mainly from the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office. Originally code-named MERINO, it is the ground station for a satellite network that intercepts telephone, radio, data links, and other communications around the world.

The facility currently includes a dozen radomes, a 5,600 square meter computer room, and 20-odd service and support buildings. Two of its ground antenna are part of the U.S. Defense Satellite Communications System.

Also, there's a huge piece of soverign US land in the middle of Australia, and I'm not talking like a consulate, it's a huge military base. Probably there's nukes there, but the rumour is that we own the land, it's actually USA territory...not leased from someone like Canada is from the natives thru a treaty. Real US property.

Never heard that one before, I doubt it. No way to legislate that, the best we could do is a massively long lease and 'embassy' status for the land. Technically all US embassys count as US soil, no?

There is no way this would have escaped publicity, we're a nosy bunch.
 
2003-07-15 06:23:20 AM
jay_vee

You really need some decent political interviewers over there. Our Jeremy Paxman would have got an answer.

There are some awful ones. I love it when CNN goes to that hyper guy from the UK with the giant teeth. He rocks. Russert is good, but the best interviewers are stuck with entertainment, except Ted Koppel on Nightline.

I read one interesting opinion piece that suggested America might push to have Japan's post war arms restrictions removed if China doesn't handle it.

And so what? I'd love to see the US divest itself of military interest there. Japan has a solid government and a good constitution. They can be trusted with self-determination. The litmus test is Germany. If they can do it with their corrupt system, surely Japan is 10x more suited towards having a military. I guess that's the difference between creating NATO so that Europe does your bidding by proxy and wanting to control an entire region for yourself because you can't manipulate the locals as easily as the Europeans.
 
2003-07-15 06:27:30 AM
2003-07-15 06:16:56 AM peter_hook

does [The Queen] not want it because she's nice, or does she not want it because she likes having an option of control and living on welfare in a lifestyle no commoner could ever imagine (but could exalt their Monarch by loving)?


You're confusing power with money. She has no real control over the countries she's the head of state for, including the UK. She can disolve parliament, but wouldn't do it unless parliament asked her to, and she has an audience with Tony Blair every week where she gives him tea and crumpets and talks about horses.

Yeah, she's happy to have lots of money and be a figurehead for a bunch of countries, but she doesn't want to rule anywhere.
 
2003-07-15 06:28:10 AM
peter_hook

That whole vote was screwed ... That whole thing was loaded from the start. The question should have been simple: "Do you want to keep the Monarchy?" Yes or no. That's all it needed to be. Afterward, you could hold a referendum to decide how it should operate.

100% with you on that one! It was awful to have to vote No - a very sad day when you know you have been so manipulated by your government.

The rest of the country voted him back in, after. That's what really hurt - that my compatriots could be soooooo stuupid :(

/vidiot
 
2003-07-15 06:29:09 AM
Heh, when I was younger I used to think that neutron bombs used to explode and giant "N"s would fly out and smash into people and turn them in to oblivion.

/pointless comment
 
2003-07-15 06:29:21 AM
Damm it! Its 2003 and we don't have flying cars yet, no tin foil suits, no space hotels!! The least the world goverments could do is set off some nukes and give us a Mad Max style post-apocalypse world to drive muscle cars around in and shoot stuff. Is that too much to ask?

Come on NK make my fave sci-fi films come true!
 
2003-07-15 06:30:58 AM
Can we please just vaporize N. Korea and move on. I mean really, who'd miss it?
 
2003-07-15 06:31:14 AM
Tad3tte: What evidence is that?
 
Displayed 50 of 226 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report